❓ Hon. Kate Doust questions the Minister for Planning regarding the unratified Mandurah North Structure Plan (MNSP) and its ramifications on the Madora Bay north outline development plan, particularly concerning beach recognition and ecological buffers. The Minister deflects responsibility, citing the WAPC's role and ongoing SAT proceedings.
AnsweredQoN 1286Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN
AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION — MANDURAH NORTH STRUCTURE PLAN
1286. Hon KATE DOUST to the
minister representing the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the Mandurah north structure plan—MNSP—dated
30 June 2006, plan 04/1623/001C.
(1) Is the
Minister for Planning aware that the MNSP 2006 was never ratified or enacted by
the Western � Australian Planning
Commission; and, if so, can he explain why this is so?
(2) Is the
minister aware that as a result there are now significant ramifications
regarding the latest Madora � Bay north
outline development plan, including, but not limited to —
(a) the
recognition of the Madora Bay regional beach; and
(b) the intent
to keep the ecological buffer between Singleton and Madora Bay?
(3) Does the
minister agree that the public open space—POS—requirement at 10
per cent is only a minimum requirement, and for public amenity it would be
desirable for an increased amount of POS so that the community benefits from
retained areas of natural ecological significance?
AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION — MANDURAH NORTH STRUCTURE PLAN
1286. Hon KATE DOUST to the
minister representing the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the Mandurah north structure plan—MNSP—dated
30 June 2006, plan 04/1623/001C.
(1) Is the
Minister for Planning aware that the MNSP 2006 was never ratified or enacted by
the Western � Australian Planning
Commission; and, if so, can he explain why this is so?
(2) Is the
minister aware that as a result there are now significant ramifications
regarding the latest Madora � Bay north
outline development plan, including, but not limited to —
(a) the
recognition of the Madora Bay regional beach; and
(b) the intent
to keep the ecological buffer between Singleton and Madora Bay?
(3) Does the
minister agree that the public open space—POS—requirement at 10
per cent is only a minimum requirement, and for public amenity it would be
desirable for an increased amount of POS so that the community benefits from
retained areas of natural ecological significance?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question.
(1) Under the
Planning and Development Act 2005, the Minister for Planning does not have a
role in decision-making on structure plans. However, the Department of Planning
advises that the City � of � Mandurah is undertaking the work required to
prepare a local planning strategy, which includes an update of the strategic
planning for the northern Mandurah area.
(2) As the WAPC
is responsible for decisions on structure plans, the minister has not been
briefed on the details of the Madora Bay north outline development plan but
trusts that the WAPC will exercise its decision-making on the plan appropriately.
It is understood that this matter is currently before the State � Administrative Tribunal.
(3) The WAPC's
livable neighbourhoods design policy requires that in residential areas 10 per cent
of the gross subdivisible area must be provided free of cost by the subdivider
for public open space. Ten � per cent is
therefore the maximum amount that the WAPC can require a proponent to provide
free of cost, and any additional provision of public open space must be at the
discretion of that proponent.
(1) Under the
Planning and Development Act 2005, the Minister for Planning does not have a
role in decision-making on structure plans. However, the Department of Planning
advises that the City � of � Mandurah is undertaking the work required to
prepare a local planning strategy, which includes an update of the strategic
planning for the northern Mandurah area.
(2) As the WAPC
is responsible for decisions on structure plans, the minister has not been
briefed on the details of the Madora Bay north outline development plan but
trusts that the WAPC will exercise its decision-making on the plan appropriately.
It is understood that this matter is currently before the State � Administrative Tribunal.
(3) The WAPC's
livable neighbourhoods design policy requires that in residential areas 10 per cent
of the gross subdivisible area must be provided free of cost by the subdivider
for public open space. Ten � per cent is
therefore the maximum amount that the WAPC can require a proponent to provide
free of cost, and any additional provision of public open space must be at the
discretion of that proponent.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.